John the Baptist

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I just read something in Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament?" that caught my eye. Here's the relevant text:

"These revisions [to the original Q sayings] were ingenious. Their first move was to introduce the figure of John and let HIM step forth first as a prophet of judgment and preacher of repentance. Their second move was to have John predict a certain "coming one" would would separate the wheat fromt he chaff on "his treshing floor," wherever and whenever that might be."

In other words, after the Q Jesus movement had undergone a rough period, they changed their image to one of apocalypticism. To legitimate this new view of Jesus (who had until then just been a teacher of Cynic-like wisdom teaching about the Kingdom of God, i.e. networking) the editors introduced John the Baptist so as to provide a precedent for the new flavour. It is also the scholarly opinion that while John represented the ascetic (fakir-type?), Jesus is regarded as more of a hedonist (not following the usual Jewish rules of ritual purity).

Now, here are some excerpts from Laura's Leonardo article:

1. "Leonardo has transformed John, the alleged precursor of Christ, from a gaunt ascetic to what can only be said to be almost a hermaprhodite with soft, womanly flesh, glancing out of the painting with a look that is not renunciation, but sly mystery and devious invitation with finger pointing heavenward." [These traits were purposefully used to tell us something about John. Is Leonardo also saying something about asceticism? That it is self-indulgent?]

2. [In Virgin of The Rocks, Version One, Louvre, 1483] "Notice the pointing finger of contempt from the Angel to John the Baptist."

3. "Is the implication [of the hand imagery related to picking up bread before betrayal] that John the Baptist, in the Virgin of the rocks, was a sort of "Judas?""

Also, from http://www.cassiopaea.org/Rennes-le-Chateau/rennes29.html:

"If [Raynaldus] had reported that the Cathars worshipped John the Baptist as the true Christ that also would have been sufficiently damning. However, his version of what they believed was that 1) John the Baptist represented a demon and, and that 2) there was a "bad man" crucified in Jerusalem, who was connected to Mary Magdalene, but that it wasn't the "real" Jesus. So Raynaldus probably wasn't making it up. Clearly, the beliefs of the Cathars were something other than an idea that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, or that Jesus and Mary had children together, contrary to what present day expositors of "occult secrets of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail" would have us believe."

So, anyone have any ideas on what really happened?
 
Well, there are sources that suggest Jesus and John were both Essenes, which would account for what is seen as their similarities. The significant inclusion of John's statement along the llines of 'here comes THE MAN' only makes sense if there was some bond of understanding, training and experience before Jesus begins his sales pitch.
The general lack of information about Jesus' where abouts for most of his life could be interpreted that he was undergoing extensive education and training whilst John was out there baptising and spreading the word. One can well understand the Cathar's reverence for John as a prophet, or as a preacher, in the same manner that I am sure the teachings of Jesus were also respected.
How contrived the story of John's execution is we will never know. On the face of it he was imprisoned for trying to tell Herod that he should not be trying to 'take' his brothers wife. Since he seemed to have already married her, what was her reason for wanting John dead - it would make no difference to her, but perhaps her daughter Salome stood to gain from the marriage. Once again Herod seems to be being made a scapegoat for some deeper politics. Again this would make some kind of sense if John was aware that he had overstepped the line - either in his general approach, or in declaring Jesus to be the Messiah.
What might make some sense would be if John was perceived as the 'agent provocateur' in a move to change the powerbase, the equivalent of old osama at the moment. It would have been a brave man to just arrest and execute him with no good cause - baring in mind the political and religious tensions of the time - however, a more or less trumped up civil charge was enough to do the trick. Of course we also have the highly symbolic removal of the head rather than the normal crucifixion.
Again, I can understand why the Cathars may have reverred John. Just a few thoughts anyway....

in light

autumn
 
autumn said:
Well, there are sources that suggest Jesus and John were both Essenes, which would account for what is seen as their similarities. The significant inclusion of John's statement along the llines of 'here comes THE MAN' only makes sense if there was some bond of understanding, training and experience before Jesus begins his sales pitch.
The general lack of information about Jesus' where abouts for most of his life could be interpreted that he was undergoing extensive education and training whilst John was out there baptising and spreading the word. One can well understand the Cathar's reverence for John as a prophet, or as a preacher, in the same manner that I am sure the teachings of Jesus were also respected.
You missed it: The Cathars did NOT reverence John as a prophet or a preacher.

What's more, the really BIG problem that people have trouble dealing with is the idea that the gospels in no way, shape, form or fashion, are "historical." Trying to say that Jesus and John were "both Essenes" and then passing to the plausible explanation that this "would account for what is seen in their similarities" misses the whole point. As Donald Redford wrote:

One can appreciate the pointlessness of these questions if one poses similar questions of the Arthurian stories, without first submitting the text to a critical evaluation. Who were the consuls of Rome when Arthur drew the sword from the stone? Where was Merlin born?

Can one seriously envisage a classical historian pondering whether it was Iarbas or Aeneas that was responsible for Dido’s suicide, where exactly did Remus leap over the wall, what really happened to Romulus in the thunderstorm, and so forth?

In all these imagined cases none of the material initially prompting the questions has in any way undergone a prior evaluation as to how historical it is!
That is why Mack's work is so important. I highly recommend both "The Lost Gospel" and "Who Wrote The New Testament: The Making of Christian Myth." In the meantime, you can read the referenced review for the short version.
 
You missed it: The Cathars did NOT reverence John as a prophet or a preacher.
What I intended to convey was that IF they had reverred John it would be understandable - the whole thing is really a conditional statement - I just forgot the conditional :-) That was why I later said "the Cathars may have reverred John"
Raynaldus' viewpoint sounds so odd that I cannot help but wonder that he is just trying to toe the party line and protect his own back in the process. (Witness:Oh yes, I've seen the witches kissing demons and cavorting with the devil. Judge: oh right, it must be true then!!) Salem III it isn't, but try the original.

Nevertheless, the vehemence of your response is somewhat unwelcome. In what way do I have a "BIG problem with dealing with the idea that the gospels are not true historical records?" There are so many glaring differences that they cannot all be right, and therefore none of them are right? But isn't it far more fun, far more challenging, far more *interesting* to try and tease out the bits that are true, to seperate spin from splat. I know that this is a conjectural situation, whatever their pasts, the information as presented in the gospels seems to imply some type of prior kinship - either in learning or upbringing - why else does it appear? Is it just a fabrication to give truth to the lie that this was the Messiah - did the event even take place? Should we be proposing a ban on the use of the name Jesus - since that could not possibly be the name of the prophet/holy man/teacher/rabi???? If it is a fabrication, for whose benefit? Given that the gospels were probably written some time after the events, can we give any credence to any of the content at all? If not, then hey, let's stop christianity because it can't be proved....but isn't that where faith takes over?

The Old Testament contains many histories, but bound up a way that made sense to its creators because it was written for an audience of the time. What so many people forget is that he lives of folks 3000 years ago were very different from our own - oral traditon was the key. Stories and histories only worked if you understood the scenery. Today we use catchphrases that allude to common shared experiences - almost a shorthand that varies from culture to culture, moment to moment. In 3000 years time, the catchprase may survive but not the understanding of how it came about , nor the shared experience that gives it shape and life.

The New Testament is a lot different because it has all the appearance of something that has been deliberately built rather than the result of an evolutionary process. Who knows the real answer? Not me that's for sure, but the original question was "So, anyone have any ideas on what really happened?" - I am sorry if my response caused you so much upset.
 
autumn said:
What I intended to convey was that IF they had reverred John it would be understandable - the whole thing is really a conditional statement - I just forgot the conditionalNevertheless, ...
I think we are communicating with very different styles.

First:I try to be precise and careful to convey my ideas as exactly as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding. When I read something that someone else has written, I tend to assume that they, too, are trying to be precise so as to avoid misunderstanding and I read every word carefully.

autumn said:
...the vehemence of your response is somewhat unwelcome. In what way do I have a "BIG problem ...
Second: since I do put that effort into my communications, please re-read what I wrote and you will discover that nowhere did I say that YOU have a problem. I do find it curious that you "read" a striving for precision as "vehemence". As Gurdjieff said:

" 'The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently.

"This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being.

"If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. "
 
I think we are communicating with very different styles.
One wonders how many lives could have been saved.................

You are of course quite correct - thank you for your advice, I will try harder next time :-)

in light

autumn
 
1.) I think it's important to find out who "Jesus" actually was, what his real name was, and what he actually did. Why? Because the Matrix felt sufficiently threatened to put a ton of effort into hijacking the movement he started, esp. mixing the truth with lies to a very fine degree to keep everyone confused.

2.) Good work has been done on the Arthurian stories, establishing the historical basis that was mythologized. Indeed, this helps us understand the mythology better. The New Testament Gospels and the gospel of Thomas (I recommend the Davies translation) can tell us some valuable info; recognizing that the bible was re-written to make it conform with the gospel of Faith and to serve political ends, we can reverse engineer the Lie back to the Truth.

3.) In this light, it seems to me that J the B was SEARCHING for someone. The only way he could recognize him is that the person he was searching for would have a unique and powerful REACTION to him. So, J the B was going all over the place, doing something no-one had ever done before; lots of people had baptized with water in public, but none had done it FOR FREE. Furthermore, "Jesus" himself apparently had the potential before his interaction with J the B, but it was not activated. The unique interaction between those 2 people ACTIVATED something in "Jesus" that led him to take an action which started a movement which was ALMOST completely hijacked by the Evil. But a light shined on in the darkness, a darkness which was not able to overcome it...
 
Jeffrey of Troy said:
1.) I think it's important to find out who "Jesus" actually was, what his real name was, and what he actually did. Why? Because the Matrix felt sufficiently threatened to put a ton of effort into hijacking the movement he started, esp. mixing the truth with lies to a very fine degree to keep everyone confused.
I agree, but the problem is that there doesn't seem to be ANY real evidence left over. It has all been destroyed or distorted. Unless another library gets turned up somewhere around Galilee, I think we're left with Q. And I still haven't seen "Jesinavarah" in any texts. Maybe it'll turn up! ;)

Jeffrey of Troy said:
3.) In this light, it seems to me that J the B was SEARCHING for someone. The only way he could recognize him is that the person he was searching for would have a unique and powerful REACTION to him. So, J the B was going all over the place, doing something no-one had ever done before; lots of people had baptized with water in public, but none had done it FOR FREE. Furthermore, "Jesus" himself apparently had the potential before his interaction with J the B, but it was not activated. The unique interaction between those 2 people ACTIVATED something in "Jesus" that led him to take an action which started a movement which was ALMOST completely hijacked by the Evil. But a light shined on in the darkness, a darkness which was not able to overcome it...
First you said we need to get to the "truth" of the matter of the historicity of the gospels, but then you accept the narrative accound of Jesus' baptism by J the B. The point I tried to make in my original post is that the J the B story was added AFTER the original Q sayings, implying that it was either a historical story added for effect, or a fictional story inspired (or not) by actual people/events. I was motivated by Laura's comments on J in her Da Vinci article. You've offered an hypothesis that is pretty common (Steiner, Cayce, for example), but it seems there's more to this story than just that...
 
What's more, the really BIG problem that people have trouble dealing with is the idea that the gospels in no way, shape, form or fashion, are "historical."
Are You saying there is 'no' remnant of 'Esoteric History' in the Gospels? I ask as it
seems to me, that once having investigated & discarded the material history one is
surely impelled to discover the Spiritual Principle behind what is being conveyed.
In my experience the Gospels certainly corroborate the 'Tradition'.
 
RuSTO said:
What's more, the really BIG problem that people have trouble dealing with is the idea that the gospels in no way, shape, form or fashion, are "historical."
Are You saying there is 'no' remnant of 'Esoteric History' in the Gospels? I ask as it
seems to me, that once having investigated & discarded the material history one is
surely impelled to discover the Spiritual Principle behind what is being conveyed.
In my experience the Gospels certainly corroborate the 'Tradition'.
There's a difference between "esoteric history" and "history." Sure, Jesus must have had a mother. Was her name Mary (possibly) and was she a virgin (not likely)? Apparently Jesus had brothers. Was one named James (possibly) or was he a brother in the way Gurdjieff called Orage his brother? Was Jesus really crucified or was it an allegory? Burton Mack, in his book Myth of Innocence, pretty much tears apart the entire passion narrative of Mark. He argues that the ONLY grains of historicity in the gospel are the Christ myth (a tradition of Jesus as a martyr for a cause), the ritual meal (gathering to eat in his memory), collections of miracle stories (designed to make a connection with the Jews' exodus), pronouncement stories (showing Jesus was seen as a witty guy), parables (that show he used allegory), and that Mark was familiar with Jewish scriptures. So in other words, Jesus existed, taught in Galilee, and we don't know a whole lot more than that. That is "history." Whether or not the crucifixion, parables, people, etc. MEAN anything I would say is "esoteric history."
 
There's a difference between "esoteric history" and "history."
Thanx 'hkoehli', but your answer simply re-iterates that which I already assumed.
My FAQ is based on the specific wording - "no way, shape, form or fashion, are "historical." "
This intimates the inclusion of 'Esoteric History' & this is why I asked.
 
Regarding the historicity of Jesus, here are some excerpts from the following link:

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

Regarding the authenticity of these documents, however, I do not know because they sound quite partisan...

The Oldest Views and Literary Data on the External Appearance of Jesus


The Description of Publius Lentullus

The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.

"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named Yeshua [Jesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him Laugh, but many have seen Him Weep. In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Emerald of Caesar

(The picture is on the corresponding site and did not copy here- E/Q)

This Likeness of Jesus was copied from a portrait carved on an emerald by order of Tiberius Caesar, which emerald the Emperor of the Turks afterwards gave out of the Treasury of Constantinople to Pope Innocent VIII for the redemption of his brother, taken captive by the Christians.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Archko Volume"

Another description of Jesus is found in "The Archko Volume" which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus. This information substantiates that He came from racial lines which had blue eyes and golden hair. In a chapter entitled "Gamaliel's Interview" it states concerning Jesus (Yeshua) appearance:

"I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: 'If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy....' This Jew [Nazarite] is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. ...this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before..."
 
I believe that those documents have been shown to be propagada or forgeries.
 
Back
Top Bottom